Sri Rehaman Khan vs Mrs Amreen Taj
2023 Latest Caselaw 2605 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                          RPFC No. 218 of 2022




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                                BEFORE

                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                                 REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.218 OF 2022

                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI REHAMAN KHAN
                      @ ABDUL REHAMAN KHAN @ BADSAH,
                      S/O LATE JANAB ANWER KHAN SAHEB,
                      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                      R/O NO.3, NEJEER SAB LAYOUT,
                      BOMMANAHALLI,
                      BANGLAORE SOUTH TALUK,
                      BANGALORE 560068.

                      ALSO AT NO.31,
                      HONGASANDRA VILLAGE,
                      5TH CROSS, BEGUR HOBLI,
                      BANGALORE 685568.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER

Digitally signed by             (BY SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA H, ADVOCATE)
SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              AND:
KARNATAKA

                      1.   MRS. AMREEN TAJ,
                           W/O REHMAN KHAN
                           @ ABDUL REHAMAN KHAN @ BADSAH,
                           D/O LATE JANAB ABBAS KHAN SAHEB,
                           AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

                      2.   KUMARI SHAFEYA,
                           D/O REHMAN KHAN,
                           @ ABDUL REHAMAN KHANA @ BADSAH,
                           AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

                      3.   MASTER AMANUULLA KHAN,
                           S/O REHMAN KHAN
                                   -2-
                                           RPFC No. 218 of 2022




     @ ABDUL REHAMAN KHAN @ BADSAH,
     AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.

     R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS,
     R/P BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN.

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.53,
     BETTADASANAPURA VILLAGE,
     BEGUR HOBLI AND POST,
     BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
     BANGALORE - 560 068.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

           (BY SRI CHOWDAREDDY T.M., ADVOCATE)

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.05.2021     PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.526/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order passed

by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru, passed in Crl.Misc.No.526/2015 dated

27.05.2021, wherein maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month

is granted to petitioner No.1, who is the wife and

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

Rs.3,000/- each per month to two children who are

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the wife and

two children in Crl.Misc.No.526/2015 is that the marriage

between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on

06.10.2008 and in the said wedlock, petitioner No.1 gave

birth to two children i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3 born on

15.01.2010 and 17.06.2011. It is her case that at the time

of marriage her parents had given a cash of Rs.50,000/- as

dowry and gold ornaments were given and at the first

instance they took care of her very well. Considering the

family background of petitioner No.1, the parents of the

respondent initially requested and then demanded her

brother to get marry the younger sister of the respondent,

namely Rehama Bi. Initially he refused to marry her, but

due to the pressure of his parents he agreed to marry.

Accordingly, they married on 19.09.2010. After the said

marriage, the real problem started as the respondent and

his parents insisted that her brother should reside in in-

laws house and settle down. But, as the mother of

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

petitioner No.1 was suffering from sugar, B.P., eyesight

and other old age ailments, he refused to settle down in in-

laws house. Thereafter, the respondent and his parents

started ill-treating her by abusing and physically assaulted

petitioner No.1 in such a way that she was compelled to go

out of the matrimonial home. But, she tolerated the ill-

treatment. As their harassment increased, she lodged a

complaint with Madiwala Police Station on 31.12.2012.

Again petitioner No.1 lodged another complaint on

22.01.2013 before Basavanagudi Women Police Station.

Then the respondent took petitioner No.1 and set up a

rented home at Bandepalya, Bengaluru. Due to the

instigation of his brother and sister, he intentionally used to

pick up quarrels with petitioner No.1 and find fault and

mistakes for each and every point of her way of doing

work. He several times manhandled her, assaulted and

abused in a filthy language. He started to neglect to

maintain the petitioners without providing the basic

requirements to them. In this regard, several panchayaths

were held between the family members of both sides in the

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

presence of village elders. The respondent and his family

members without justifiable reasons thrown her out of the

matrimonial home and never taken back the petitioners. It

is also an allegation that in the year 2015, she was

assaulted and hence she has given the complaint. It is the

contention of petitioner No.1 that she cannot depend on

her old aged mother. Her brother is an autorickshaw driver

and he is not in a position to maintain the petitioners. The

respondent is a mechanic having his own well established

mechanic garage at Attibele named as KGN Garage and

having good income. He also does business of buying and

selling the vehicles, he owns a Eicher, TATA A.C. 407

Tempo and from the said sources he has total income of

Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month and hence claimed

the maintenance.

4. The respondent appeared and filed the

statement of objection and he admitted the marriage with

petitioner No.1 and also petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the

children. He also admitted that the brother of petitioner

No.1 has married his younger sister on 19.09.2010, but

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

denied the other allegations. It is his contention that the

brother of petitioner No.1 was harassing and torturing his

younger sister for additional dowry. Therefore, she filed

C.Misc.No.55/2014. It is also his case that her brother filed

O.S.No.96/2013 for the relief of divorce against the

respondent's sister and several meetings were also held. A

complaint was also filed and there were differences

between them, but he denied his income and earnings. He

contended that petitioner No.1 on her own left the

matrimonial home and deserted him only to harass him and

his family members and hence not entitled for any

maintenance.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, petitioner

No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P.1 to 12. The respondent has not

cross-examined the witness and also not adduced any

evidence. The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record and also the

pleadings of the parties and taking note of the non-denial

of income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month by the respondent

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

and he is having business, awarded maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/-

each per month to petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner before this Court is that the Trial Court

committed an error in awarding exorbitant maintenance.

The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court has

not properly appreciated the income of the petitioner herein

and blindly allowed the petition by granting maintenance

and erroneously comes to the conclusion that he has got

sufficient income and is capable of giving maintenance. It

is also the contention of the learned counsel that no

material is placed before the Court with regard to his

income is concerned and also contend that criminal cases

are also registered and only with an intention to harass the

petitioner, criminal miscellaneous petition was filed.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents submits that though criminal miscellaneous

petition was filed in 2015, it was disposed of in the year

2021. Even though several opportunities were given to the

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

petitioner/husband, he has not cross-examined P.W.1 and

not adduced any evidence and made the tactics to deny the

right of the respondents i.e., wife and children and even

not taken care of them. Even though interim maintenance

was ordered, he not paid the maintenance and only an

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is deposited before this Court in

view of the direction given by this Court.

8. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel

for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that an opportunity has to be given to lead

evidence by remanding the matter.

9. Having heard the respective learned counsel and

also on perusal of the material available on record, there is

no dispute with regard to the marriage and also no dispute

with regard to two children are born in the said wedlock.

When the petition was filed, the two children were aged

about 5 years and 4 years and now they are aged about 13

years and 12 years. On perusal of the order sheet of the

Trial Court dated 20.01.2018, the Trial Court granted the

interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

No.1 and Rs.2,000/- each per month to petitioner Nos.2

and 3, in all Rs.7,000/- per month. It is the contention of

the learned counsel for the respondents that interim

maintenance was also not paid and though he had made

the separate residence, he did not turn up after making the

same. The records also discloses that several applications

are filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court

and inspite of it, no cross-examination was done. The Trial

Court also granted an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1

by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- vide order dated

17.09.2019 and thereafter also even though P.W.1 was

present, the respondent was absent and there was no

representation and not cross-examined P.W.1. When such

being the case, the question of granting one more

opportunity by remanding the matter to the Trial Court

does not arise. The petitioner has not utilized the

opportunity given to cross-examine the witness and even

not led any evidence.

10. Having taken note of the material on record,

there is a pleading in the petition that the petitioner is

- 10 -

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

running a garage and doing vehicle business and earning

Rs.1,00,000/- per month and though he denied the same,

not adduced any evidence. Having taken note of the cost

of living and also the expenses to be met to two children,

who were aged about 5 years and 4 years at the time of

filing the petition and who are now aged about 13 years

and 12 years, the quantum arrived at by the Trial Court

i.e., Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and

Rs.3,000/- each per month to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is not

exorbitant as contended by the petitioner. It is very

difficult to maintain two children at maintenance of

Rs.3,000/- each per month and respondent No.1 has to

meet the household expenses as well as accommodation

and educational expenses. Hence, I do not find any merit

in the petition to set aside the order of granting of

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1

and Rs.3,000/- each per month to the petitioner Nos.2 and

3. There is no merit in the revision petition.

11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

- 11 -

RPFC No. 218 of 2022

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD